Home Original page

Python and Zope

Tim Hammerquist tim at vegeta.ath.cx
Sun Sep 9 03:28:27 EDT 2001 
Me parece que Oleg Broytmann <phd at phd.pp.ru> dijo:
> On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 10:18:52PM -0700, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > Frankly I was pretty unimpressed with Zope. After one gets over the
> > 'gee-whiz' factor,
> > I've found that the learning curve behind Zope and the relative
> > non-portability of the code you
> > must write for it far outweigh the benefits (what are they again btw?) of
> > using Zope.
> > 
> > If you've used mod_perl, mod_php or mod_python before, I'd suggest going
> > that route.
> 
>    Benefits of Zope vs mod_*:
> 
> 1. It is a server, not a CGI - it is always in memory, it does not forks
> for ervery request (speed).

How does this differ from mod_*?  mod_* are not servers in themselves,
but they are compiled into the server, so they are not CGI.  They do not
fork for URIs handled by a mod_* handler.  Apache retains all CGI
capability at the same time.

> 2. Integrated system - ZODB, SQL, templates, security, indexing and
> searching in one package.

Ah. The PHP route. Of course, DB access would be better served through a
universal API, such as Perl's DBI.  This maintains portability whether
it be CGI, mod_* script, or even standalone, you can just encapsulate
the access methods and drop it in somewhere else with minimal changes.
Zope's solution sounds more like PHP's, which is just as flexibly and
portable as I like.

</opinions type="strong">

I'll be testing out a Zope environment before too long, so I won't make
definitive (en|dis)couragements right now.

Tim
-- 
Love belongs to Desire,
and Desire is always cruel.
    -- Old Man, The Sandman
More information about the Python-list mailing list